Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "An anonymous, twentysomething blogger is giving Mexicans what they can't get elsewhere — an inside view of their country's raging drug war. Operating from behind a thick curtain of computer security, Blog del Narco in less than six months has become Mexico's go-to Internet site at a time when mainstream media are feeling pressure and threats to stay away from the story. Many postings, including warnings and a beheading, appear to come directly from drug traffickers. Others depict crime scenes accessible only to military or police."

I'm a mexican living in Mexico. I won't go as far as saying that it is hell on earth, but it is getting pretty gruesome. And that's just from what you hear on the news!

Then I started diggin in alternate sources, such as blog del narco, and damn, was I missing out on all the news!

Just recently I bumped into this story [bbc.co.uk] about Ciudad Juarez. The story both gives hope and scares the crap out of you. No sign of that story on the two most widely spread newspapers in Mexico, though. They're just sweeping it under the rug.

I don't know if they're so much sweeping it under the rug so much as (very rightfully) fearing for their lives. NPR was recently running a string of stories about this with the related story found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128929784 [npr.org] I can not blame the traditional media for avoiding a subject where they face more danger than most war zone correspondents do. The blog in question seems to have done something that traditional media can not: Avoided identifying itself in a way that allows the cartels to go after it with violence. I am personally happy to be living in an era where the dissemination of such dangerous information is possible. Maybe we wont get it how we want to, but the information is out there to be had. Especially in a country where Orwellian measures aren't being taken, important information has a way of finding its way past blocks that may have been 100% effective in stifling it in the past.

There's a war in Mexico, and the soldiers routinely cross-over to US territory, kidnap citizens, and drag them back to Mexico. Or just outright kill them. Washington DC used to be the murder capitol of the nation, but now it's been eclipsed by Phoenix Arizona. (Phoenix is also the #1 city for kidnapping.) It's a sad state of affairs.

[Deleted paragraph about closing the border.] I've decided to self-censor myself because I'm tired of being marked "troll". Heaven forbid I share my Jeffersonian views in public (i.e. defense of self, defense of home, defense of country is a right), so I'll just keep them to myself..

Oh and I agree that legalizing marijuana/cocaine growing in the US would basically end the war. Mexican and South American druglords could no longer fund their wars without that money. They would die-off like the bootleggers died-off after Alcohol was legalized. Across the ocean, the EU state of Portugal(?) legalized drugs and opened-up addiction centers to help people get cured, and the drug-related crime plummeted to almost nothing.

If there's a war in Mexico, then we should be giving shelter and asylum to refugees trying to escape it.

I don't think you did a good job of self-censoring. Furthermore, I don't really know how you'd "close the border" without harming a lot of people who aren't a threat to your home, self or country. Mexico -- or at least parts of it -- looks like a hell hole to me at the moment, so it seems pretty reasonable and rational to flee to the United States. I think only the most unreasonable of people would object to a individual or nation acting in genuine self-defense, but to the ethical risking the lives of non-threatening people is still reckless endangerment and killing them is, minimally, manslaughter

Could you back up your murder and kidnapping statement? Just looking at the FBI murder figures for 2009 [fbi.gov] for cities over 100,000 population, Phoenix has a murder rate of about 8 murders per 100,000 capita per year. DC's murder rate is 3 times that.

Wikipedia has a page for the 2008 data [wikipedia.org]. New Orleans tops the list (as it does in the 2009 data at 52 -- there seems to have been a significant drop in murder rate in 2009). Phoenix looks to about 28th on that list with a about 11 murders per 100,000 in 2008 -- less than a sixth of New Orleans's rate and about a third DC's.

Kidnapping seems like it's a lot harder to quantify because cases of missing persons are not necessarily kidnapping. This [politifact.com] is the best discussion on kidnapping I could find in about 15 minutes of searching. It gives further support to the idea that Mexico is a hell hole at the moment, as well

If Mexico simply closed the border, with force. Stopped ALL americans from entering, the problem would be solved.

Because it is the US that is the problem, not Mexico. The US taste for drugs causes problems around the globe. Isolate the US and the drug trade ceases. The US are clearly to incompetent and to poor to patrol their own borders, so someone else should do it for them. Maybe the UN should blokkade the US:P

And the US could hardly protest, after all, they are against drugs aren't they? So UN ships

There's a war in Mexico, and the soldiers routinely cross-over to US territory, kidnap citizens, and drag them back to Mexico. Or just outright kill them. Washington DC used to be the murder capitol of the nation, but now it's been eclipsed by Phoenix Arizona. (Phoenix is also the #1 city for kidnapping.)

It is important to place such claims in context [mediamatters.org] with actual statistics from the Dept of Justice. [usdoj.gov]

1) From 2000 to 2009 the violent crime rate in Phoenix proper is down 30% and property crimes declined 46%. The most recently available statistics - for the 1st quarter of 2010 - indicate violent crime rate in Phoenix has plunged over the last year -- down another 17% homicide specifically is down another 38% and robberies down another 27%.

2) The violent crime rate across the entire state of Arizona is at the lowest its been since 1983. Property crime rates are at similarly low levels too.

3) Essentially all kidnappings in Phoenix are of criminals themselves. The Phoenix Police Department has made an official statement that, "Unless you're involved in the dope trade, there's a very very slim chance [that you'll be kidnapped.]"

4) Violent and property crime rates in other border states have also dropped significantly over the last decade.(numbers from 1998 to 2008 which is most recently available data)California: Violent crime down 28%, Property crime down 19%New Mexico: Violent crime down 32%, Property crime down 32%Texas: Violent crime down 10%, Property crime down 12%

I've decided to self-censor myself because I'm tired of being marked "troll".

Wow, moderation actually works. Cool!

Oh and I agree that legalizing marijuana/cocaine growing in the US would basically end the war. Mexican and South American druglords could no longer fund their wars without that money.

You would think so, but the root of the problem is deeper than that. Latin America has always been torn apart by various factions wanting power, even before the drug wars started. Corruption is encouraged, but not caused by drugs. Latin American countries will continue to have these issues even after drugs are legalized.

Consider that Canada is just as much a supplier of drugs to the US as Mexico is, and yet Canada isn't torn apart by war. The major issues won't be fixed in Mexico by legalizing drugs, although it might hide them deeper under the surface.

Legalising drugs is not what the drug lords want, it's what the drug consumers want. They could not compete with legal operations in terms of price. They would continue to do bad things, but they would not be able to keep large numbers of armed thugs on their staff without a source of income similar to the one that would evaporate with legalisation. They could switch to providing some other commodity, but what? It would take time to transition their production infrastructure over, and they would be faced with competition from established players. At least some of them would probably have underlings who realised that they could make money (although maybe not as much) as a legal supplier. A few at the top would probably be killed off, and some other sociopath would take their place, but that's not necessarily a bad thing: most CEOs of US companies are just as sociopathic as typical drug lords, but they exist in a system where their best interests are not served by killing people.

And how many of those boot leggers kill dozens of people a day in a war over territory in Pearl River County MS? Nearly every part of a dry county is something like a 30 minute to 1 hour drive from a wet county (excepting the middle of Utah). Most "bootleggers" do so for their own consumption.

When I was an intern, I worked briefly at an outpatient infectious disease clinic that primarily treated illicit IV drug abusers. These were genuinely good people that had too little regard for their own bodies. One of hospitals that I work at currently has a methadone clinic nearby, and while we don't have any affiliation there, we often admit patients for other medical reasons. Many people are surprised to learn that a large percentage of this patient population are not unmotivated high school dropouts

Good luck with that. The money and power these cartels have achieved comes from the fact that it is illegal. You think that they will let that change? And are you foolish enough to believe that our government isn't owned by these same cartels? We are their main source of income, and wall street is their pipeline to Washington. These cartels have proven they are willing to take any measure to keep this going. If a true anti-drug war candidate ever had a serious chance at the oval office, i am sure he would quickly turn up dead.

``Mexico legalizing won't do a damn thing if that is what you mean. The narco traffickers profit from the US' prohibition.''

Exactly. And policymakers in the USA can, for now at least, pretend it's not a US problem. In fact, they can even say: Drugs are bad, we need to be tough on them! Just look at what they did to Mexico!

``there is something of a zero sum game in effect; easier access to hard drugs mean more will do it and we'll have to put up with more tweakers, cokeheads, and smackheads wrecking their lives and making everyone around them miserable.''

I am not so sure about that.

First of all, it is really hard for me to believe that it would be a zero sum game, given that you now are fighting drug producers, traffickers and users both locally and internationally. The current drug policy costs a lot of money, involves a fair bit of violence, and puts a lot of people in prison. Meanwhile, it makes the drug trade more profitable for those who can pull it off, so they become more organized and violent as necessary to beat you. By now, that has pretty much reached the point of full-blown war. I really think you can do better than that, in terms of cost to society.

Secondly, it's not just about hard drugs. In the Netherlands, we have different policies for hard drugs and soft drugs, where the idea is to let people have their pleasure/escape from reality/whatever they're doing drugs for, while steering them away from the really bad stuff. We encourage that by basically saying: listen, drugs are bad, but if you must use them, use this or this and not that or that. It looks a lot like people just want to get their occasional high or experiment a bit when they're teens or tweens, and will happily give up their drugs after they're done with that - unless the drug manages to get them addicted or ruins their lives before they quit. By throwing different drugs like marihuana, crack and heroin all on the same heap, you apparently increase the chance of people getting on the more addictive or harmful stuff.

Thirdly, look at alcohol. Look at tobacco. Look at coffee. How addictive and harmful are those? How much trouble are they causing? How does that compare to illegal drugs, for example, marihuana, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, heroin, and amphetamines? What about prescription drugs throughout the times (some that used to be legal have later become "legal if you have a prescription" and are now pretty much only used illegally anymore)? I think you will find that, all factors considered, the legal status of a drug has a measurable impact on the drug's impact on society. I can almost picture a statistician coming out and saying "making a drug illegal increases its harm to society by X at p = 0.01".

Fourthly, some drug problems are always going to develop, regardless of whether the substance is legal or illegal. I don't know what the best way to deal with this is. In the Netherlands, we give people treatment, put them in clinics and keep them there until they are no longer dependent on the drug, give them substitute drugs as part of a programme to get off the dependency, or even, in some cases, give them the actual substance they are addicted to. This obviously costs society money, and doesn't really solve the problem. There is a lot of relapse, as well. On the other hand, it might be cheaper than not doing it. As far as I know, there is very little drug-related violence in the Netherlands, and these programmes might well be a large factor in there. However, I don't know how this system performs compared to the many alternatives; for example, locking people up as per normal (that is, we would do the same if it weren't drug-related) when they have shown to be a risk to society, where drug addiction is simply considered a factor that increases the risk.

It's really quite sad that the world learned nothing from the US' futile attempt to outlaw alcohol in the 1920's. No one is saying drugs are good. They are quite bad, but making them illegal makes them much, much worse. I wish politicians didn't care about looking "soft on crime" in dealing with the drug war, and they could actually push to try to overturn this quixotic war. Make them legal and undercut the illegal drug trade which is fueled by their artificially inflated illegal prices. We saw all the same stuff during alcohol prohibition. The extreme corruption, the gang wars, the bad moonshine that made people go permanently blind, people using/selling more potent forms because it's easier to transport. It's all avoidable, but no one will push the issue because they're instantly shot down for being "soft on drugs"

I die a little inside every time I hear a story about drug gangs basically taking over cities in Mexico and kidnapping people. Think of the people women whose husbands have been kidnapped and they receive pieces of them with ransom notes asking for money that they don't have. This is what could've happened if they kept up alcohol prohibition. Drug prohibition is just as ill-conceived. The better we do reducing supply, the higher the prices go, and the more vicious the drug gangs get in protecting their business.

It's a terrible cycle, and one that can only be broken by regulation. They need to make drugs legal through special outlets stocked with health care workers, where people can safely obtain their drugs and use the proceeds to pay for the addiction specialists and treatment centers. There's nothing we can do except address the problem of addiction, and treat such users as patients, not criminals. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's a start.

Actually, some people learned quite a bit from prohibition. Mainly: don't let it end, no matter the cost. Now the very evil people that we have made very rich and powerful are spending quite bit of the money they make to ensure that it doesn't end. The ones whom really learned from prohibition are on the wrong side of the war

It's really quite sad that the world learned nothing from the US' futile attempt to outlaw alcohol in the 1920's.

If you look at it another way, they learned quite a bit. They learned that there are few better justifications for the expansion of police power, a campaign issue that can be used whenever needed, the creation of new bureaucracies, etc. They later figured out that the sheer number of prosecutions resulting from various forms of prohibition were great for the private prison industry.

It's a terrible cycle, and one that can only be broken by regulation. They need to make drugs legal through special outlets stocked with health care workers, where people can safely obtain their drugs and use the proceeds to pay for the addiction specialists and treatment centers. There's nothing we can do except address the problem of addiction, and treat such users as patients, not criminals. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's a start.

I am reminded of that quote about having abundant solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem: how to run a sunbeam through a meter. I don't know how feasible abundant solar energy actually is, but this is a great caricacture of a mentality that needs to be understood. You're dealing with something just like it when you get down to the root of prohibition.

The government that wants to expand is only too happy to be asked to solve such "problems" but this goes unnoticed because too many people have their own reasons for supporting it. Your solution is reasonable and easily the best way to handle the whole affair. It doesn't deny the painfully obvious, which is that the way we have been approaching the issue doesn't work. You just have to solve one technical problem: how to address the visceral satisfaction some obtain from the suffering of anyone who offends their Puritannical views.

EVERYONE MUST STOP thinking that legalizing drugs is an endorsement of the behavior. In no way is regulation an endorsement. It's an acknowledgement that making drugs illegal only makes the problem worse, and that we can address the problem by treating it as an addiction. Wide availability of treatment and drug education is what people need. Many people can't be "saved," but they're doing it despite illegality anyway. Putting them in jail with a criminal record and ruining their chance of ever getting a decent job leaves them with few incentives to stop using and/or selling. As if it's not hard enough coming out of an addiction, now try it without any hope of a future.

There's better ways to handle it. There's a lot of different things to try. But we've been doing the exact same thing for over 50 years and it's only gotten worse. We've been burning our hand on the stove every day for decades, and still haven't learned from it.

And, once you get beyond the legality, most people are capable of managing addiction. I am addicted to a substance which causes physical withdrawal symptoms if I don't take any for more than about a day, as are quite a few people that I know. I take some when I wake up, and then some more in the late afternoon. It doesn't impair my ability to function in normal society, and I'm not out committing crimes to get my next fix.

The substance in question is caffeine, and I prefer to enjoy it in the form of a l

The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.

And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.

People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.

Strictly speaking, the actual cause is the demand for the drugs. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem, but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled. One cannot envision such a scenario where there is no demand.

How many alcohol cartels are out killing people right now? Only where there is prohibition do you have this problem. The demand will always be there. In fact it's possible the cartels are the ones who threaten politicians if they don't impose prohibition to begin with. Oh damn! I just made your point. Well, I suppose we could organize a boycott... Then again you could read up on the Opium Wars of the 1850s..

It's not the drugs. At worst you can say that drugs exacerbate the problem. Mexico has a lot of other problems they need to fix besides drugs. If it were just drugs, then Canada would be much more violent than they are now, because of the vast quantities of drugs produced in that region.

That assumes that they are killing because it's good times and not to protect their own lives and/or business interests, which seems unlikely.

If drugs were legal you wouldn't need to kill to eliminate competition, you wouldn't need to kill to protect yourself from law enforcement and you wouldn't need to kill to protect your product; not only would you not NEED to kill to accomplish those ends, killing wouldn't even be the most efficient way. Once the law in on your side you can ruin a man AND get all his

I'm all for drug legalization. But to think that it (legalization) will somehow make shitty murderous people better is pretty naive.

It's not that legalization would make "shitty murderous people" better, it would make "shitty murderous" behavior less profitable. Unless you want to believe that such behavior is entirely genetic and only is committed by "bad" people, and that no one gets enticed into such bad behavior because it is the most lucrative opportunity available to them, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that policy which makes bad behavior less lucrative will over time will lead to less of that behavior.

You know, if someone is intent and willing to kill for drugs or money, then then I don't think it is too far a stretch to think that that person would kill for less. So legalize drugs;sell it legally in some shop. The cartels kill the competition when it is legal. Why would they all of a sudden become better people and let the legal competition slide?

That part is funny!!Do you think any cartel could stop some company of the size of Philip Morris, for example, from trading pot and cocaine if it were legal?Drug cartels are no competition for large corporations.

No, the GP is correct. It is prohibition and the resulting corruption of the authorities that is causing the bloodshed. We haven't learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition yet. So the war will continue until then. This is not an NRA issue at all. It should be a lesson of how power corrupts. Legalize now, and the gangs will be out of business before the week is out.

My only problem with the Cig tax is all the complaints that its way too high, but then theres all the evidence that shows that it isn't even high enough to cover the health problems created by it.

Granted, I'm from Canada, and its more of a problem here since the taxes on cigs more directly pay the health care bills of the folks sucking them back, but still, our cig tax is higher, and still not high enough. They have gotten it a lot closer to enough in recent years though. I think the last time I saw them do

"The top-heavy distibution of wealth in the U.S. requires more of a real executive's drug, cocaine, which is not grown here"

Some if it IS grown here, for pharmaceutical production. Live plant stock is provided by Enaco S.A.

I just provided them with a couple of hydroponic production sheds - coca is still quite legal and widespread in Peru, and the entire Andes mountain region has a huge market of coca teas, granola bars, cookies, etc.

The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control.

And the money to pay for them comes from drug sales.

People who pay for dope should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does. Ideally we would decriminalize the drugs and thereby yank the support out from under these people. But that ain't going to happen, so if you happen to use recreational drugs, please do your fellow man a favor and stop.

The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.[5]

What ended the black market in liquor was the corner liquor store that sells to anyone, without question. If you have an ID that says you are 18, they can sell to you. And there is always a way to get someone else to buy for you if you aren't 18.

The only way we get out of the black market in drugs is for there to be a corner drug store without any restrictions. And end drug tests for employment. Open and legal drug consumption for all.

Drug abuse is a social problem and should be treated as such. Dope fiends don't care about lying to their friends and family to score more drugs, why do you think they would care about strangers in Mexico?
The real people who are funding the network of gangs and cartels are those who vote for(or appoint) politicians who support drug prohibition. End of story. The cards are entirely in their hands, dope fiends will get drugs one way or the other.

And please don't tell me modern art, music and culture could have evolved the way they did without recreational drug use. I don't care about "the children" for that reason alone, because I can not and will not protect everyone's children from all dangers. This is not anyone's responsibility but their parent's and no one but them can ever hope to fulfill that but them.

The liquor store on the corner sells hard spirits. 40%, 80%, you name it. One small bottle would kill a child. We sell it to adults only. If anyone gives it to a kid that dies, they go to jail for the rest of their lives.

The gas station sells highly flammable, toxic liquids. A kid could easily burn or kill themselves with that stuff. We sell it to adults only, same deal. We also have cars, power tools, gas-fired stoves, sharp knives, open fireplaces, barbecue pits and lawn darts. And somehow we only outlawed the lawn darts because they looked like kid's toys, instead of entire generations of kids surviving them.

Anyhow, I will absolutely resist outlawing things that have a purpose for adults for the reason that they're dangerous to kids. I am not a kid, I will protect my own kids from danger and I cannot accept if people want to transform the world into a padded cell that is safe for kids.

If free men own guns and slaves don't, free men can definitely grow plants in their own backyards and eat them.

Bullshit. As with alcohol, consumption tops out at whatever level consumers prefer.

Back in the 1970s, when weed didn't have the absurd legal consequences attached to it (and head shops were extremely common) getting high was perfectly normal in many areas. It didn't cause any trouble,and if the cops found any on you they often poured it out (or, ahem, confiscated it) and told you to move on. Weed was easier to get than booze if you were young, and since it is vastly more pleasant than the nasty buzz of alcohol, most of a generation smoked it.

Paying millions of dollars to bust and incarcerate pot smokers isn't intelligent social policy. It is driven be religionist loathing of any pleasure they do not control. The fanatical pseudo-moralist streak in America drives policies that exist for their own sake, don't facilitate their professed goals, and waste billions of our tax dollars.

Look, it's very simple. I'm a Mexican living in Mexico, I also know more cities of the us than most us citizens. Drugs are consumed in Mexico (at a tenth of the price, btw), by some people and that ain't never going to go away neither here nor there in the us.

We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico. And it wouldn't do as much good as it could because if they aren't legal up there then most of the Dough that comes here, that buys guns and officials and blood, will still be puouring in.

We need an international effort to legalize personal production of all personally produceable drugs. Not public consumption, not a blanket for junkies, but just a way for people to use their freedom in NOT helping the cartels.

As a side note, we could also start subsidizing legal drug prime matter, such as opium poppy and coca plant so that pfizer and all those Bauer fuckers would buy from the guys that now make the prime matter for illegal drugs. If you've ever seen a porter business analysis you will see that this two pronged strategy hits at both sides of the drug cartel business.

People who pay taxes should realize that they are funding a network of gangs and cartels that murders far more people than the more familiar flavor of terrorist does

There, fixed that for you. Our government has a good track record of going into other countries, identifying future terrorists and despots, and giving them guns. Your pot hookup? Probably contributed less to the Taliban than Uncle Sam.

Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??

The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control. I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government. Nevermined the consequences or the fact that you would be dead before you even reloaded your weapon.

The drugs are completely illegal in both Mexico and the USA. How's that been working out when it comes to eliminating them? What makes you believe that making guns completely illegal in both countries is going to work out better? When we finally figure out a way to keep drugs out of highly controlled environments like prisons, maybe then we can worry about the US-Mexico border.

I'll never understand why anyone even humors positions like prohibition and gun control. We've tried both for a long time now

Shows how much you know: The Browning you're talking about is the Model 1919--probably chambered in.30-06. By all rights, they're antiques, and own-able examples are priced accordingly. And, you can't just go in, plunk down 25 grand and legally buy it off the shelf--even if you are a Federal Firearms Licensee, because even FFLs must APPLY with the BATF for Each and Every machine gun (and other title 2 firarms) they transfer to their inventories--which can take one to two months, depending on how busy the ATF is..

Sure, you can go reserve it and put down a deposit while they wait for the paperwork to go through, but you won't have it in your hands for some time after that. That has been the standard operating procedure for wanna-be machine gun owners for oh... For about 80 years now.

Hitler didn't rearm the GERMANS, he re-armed the German ARMY. That is the first major difference to consider.

Second: the Nazis in 19381) completely disarmed Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and anyone that was "untrustworthy" to the gun control authorities, which hit of course communists, intellectuals and people showing a faint idea of resistance.2) disallowed innocent civilians from carrying a usable weapon3) allowed Nazi Party officials and members of their organization to *freely* carry guns without any permit at all.

I think that can be called a three-pronged approach to the Nazis ultimate goals, can it?

Disarm Jews, disallow civilians from carrying guns, allow SS members to own and carry guns without any permit at all.

You should be ashamed of such a blatant misrepresentation of facts. There is an obvious difference between the re-arming of the German army and the dis-arming of the German citizenry. Sadly, most people that read your post will not have noticed and will now be able to spread your ignorance further.

You might want to head down to the local range/gun shop before you make a statement like that. Most of the guns you see there are going to be foreign made. The highest quality ones in the store are probably israeli or czech, even.

I bought my first Glock 17 for $600 right before the clip ban during Clinton's reign. Just bought a second one, same model for $450 a few months ago. (The orginal is fine even after 10,000+ rounds through it. I just wanted a another.) Yep those high prices are killing me.

Guns are stupid easy to make take a look out there at all the 3party parts suppliers and you'll soon realize even if they closed down every single major gun manufacturer it would hardly slow the supply of parts and fully assembled weaspo

All it takes is a C&C machine and a few other pieces of tooling and you can most certainly create a homemade "gun lab". And they'll get their guns from somewhere. There are plenty of arms dealers out there and if these people can smuggle drugs, smuggling arms is not much different. I wouldn't be surprised if more arms came from Brazil or other south american countries that are producing Galil & Fal clones.

When a prisoner can make a gun in a high security prison yes.. guns can be made pretty much anywhere.

Was that particular gun a great one? No.. but it was made under some pretty serious materials control and without the advantage of some very helpful tools, under what are supposed to be some pretty watchful eyes. Firearms are a genie that are well past being out of the lamp. Closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't make them go away.

No. We need to recognize that banning drugs encourages violence. Banning guns won't work because the cat's out of the bag, and drug cartels can easily get more guns from other countries. Unless you're suggesting Team America: World Police remove guns from all countries. It's the demand for drugs in the US that funnels money into the violence in Mexico. Trying to control both is just fighting two losing wars instead of one. Did you pay attention in history to how well a two-front war worked out for Germany?

I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.

Especially with the news of numerous corrupt police and government officials in the whole drug war, I can't see it being too hard for them to 'somehow' get a bunch of military weapons if they needed to.

I'm not a really pro-gun person, but really, considering they're selling something that's illegal to make, traffic and sell... I can't see them having a hard time making, trafficking or selling guns either if they were illegal.

You're using logic. That is why you aren't screaming for more gun control and getting very upset that anyone out there might disagree with this. It's probably also why you aren't pretending that there are two equally viable viewpoints on this issue when in fact it's very simple: on

It's not about logic it's about social norms, in the US it's always been common for someone to have a handgun in the house, in Australia it's always been frowned on by society (even when it was perfectly legal to own a gun for self-defense). The gun laws in both countries are simply a reflection of the norms that each society had already imposed on itself.

Just out of curiosity, what do people who live out in the middle of nowhere do to defend themselves against thieves? It's one thing when the police are minutes away in the city, but in the outback, I'm sure that's not always the case.

Two answers.

One: our thieves by and large don't have guns because they're not trivial to come by for petty criminals. In the US, any citizen can get a gun so they're more widely available.Two: our cultures by and large aren't fed by fear. B&Es are rare. The odds of actually getting broken into if you don't live in a slum are pretty low. We're not constantly living in fear. Funny, that.

You said "American society has been whipped into a paranoid, trigger happy frenzy by 24 hour propaganda on film and tv."

That's such bullshit. Most Americans have always seen guns as just another cool, dangerous tool, like a power saw or dynamite. Teenagers and foreigners are the only people who buy into the bullshit about guns from the American media. It's a fantasy, like porn, and adult Americans know this.

Many, maybe even most, of the people in my area own guns, and almost all of them treat them w

No, but I know many people who have a gun "for self defense" who live in rural areas with nearly no, or no violent crime rate other than domestic violence which is actually made worse by gun ownership. They aren't out shooting innocent people. But they are living in a form of fear.

We don't lock our doors. the cops occasionally have something to do in our area, but it's rare. Living life in preparation for an exceedingly unlikely event is paranoia. Paranoia may increase survivability for a very small number of people for whom the very unlikely becomes a reality, but if you aren't one of them, it makes your life worse.

Watching the news makes us americans paranoid. I live in maine and the few violent crimes we do have get plenty of airplay. You'd think it was common if you just watched the news and didn't think too deeply. It's easy to forget that the stories we are hearing are ALL of them, and there are a lot of people in this state who have never even heard a gunshot fired other than during hunting season or target practice.

The fantasy the OP was referring to was the fantasy that most of us outside of major metro areas are ever, ever, ever going to want or need a gun for defense. Within major metro areas, it would be easier and better to call a cop and run.

You should be very careful to distinguish how the guns come from the US...

The US is, in fact, a pretty decent place for civilians to buy moderately zesty firearms without too much hassle. However, the US government also has a habit of handing out all sorts of military-grade goodies to governments it considers to be friends and allies.

Mexican security forces, for reasons that aren't all that hard to understand, has had some trouble stemming corruption and even the flow of former personnel into cartel forces. "Los Zetas [wikipedia.org]" for instance, are largely ex-security forces, now working for the cartels.

Obviously, there is no point in arguing that none of the guns being used in Mexico are of US origin. That is almost certainly wrong, I suspect a reasonable percentage of them are. The question, though, is are they diverted hardware from the American civilian market or are they American military aid being lost because of Mexican government corruption? Both types are "American Guns"; but they have very different policy implications...

Most of them are being shipped south across the border. They need something to haul back after they sell all the drugs up here, after all.

You would make a great truck broker (booking loads for the return trip), but the weapons that the cartels are using are not readily available in the US. They are far easier to acquire from the Mexican army deserters and the southern border. [davekopel.com]

Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??

I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.

The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."

Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms [smdp.com] to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. [innercitypress.com] fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S. [opposingviews.com]

Very. Acid can be used to recover a filed-off serial number. It is a basic forensics technique.

Oh wait, your sources are shills for the weapon manufacturers and the NRA. And you believe it cuz you like guns. Good for you.

And you dismiss his source "cuz you [hate] guns. Good for you." See? Other people can play at that too. Of course, you didn't do what he did; he actually made a point and backed it up. You're just sitting there whining because he doesn't agree with you.

almost every gun used to kill an American in the United States was purchased legally at some point

And every car and beer that leads to a DUI vehicular homicide were purchased legally. Only their owners' irresponsible and illegal use of them differentiates them from the perfectly legal ones safely used every day. So, naturally we should ban them all...

American guns are causing an epic bloodbath in Mexico

No. People are pulling those triggers. Criminals motivated by lucrative drug trade and protected by a corrupt government are pulling those triggers, and you and I both know that they source their weapons from any number of sources, many of which are not American.

While there seems to be controversy over the specific numbers there is a general consensus that a gun flow exists.

The numbers seem muddied by the data availible for consideration. NPR ran a story in 2005 [npr.org] which noted that

The ATF conducted about 1,800 successful traces last year of crime guns recovered in Mexico. Ninety to 95 percent of those led to American gun dealers according to Javier Ortiz. In October 2003, ATF traced seven assault weapons belonging to a murdered associate of drug lord Joaquin "El C

Please define "sensible" civilian gun control in the US and explian how it will prevent criminal gun use in Mexico?
Fact - Civilians in the US cannot leagally own M-16s or any other fully automatic weapon without a FFA licence.

Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??

The guns that fuel Mexico's bloody drug war come from the United States of America, where we are apparently just a little too dumb for sensible gun control. I guess you never know when you will need an M-16 with a large clip to take down your own country's elected government. Nevermined the consequences or the fact that you would be dead before you even reloaded your weapon.

Since they are armed with military weapons, I guess you must be in favor of disarming the military. That would disarm 1.5M Americans with weapons. Or are you more worried about the 10,000 civilians who own automatic weapons?

1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)

2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.

Those of us who do own full auto firearms fall into three categories:A: Law abiding citizens who like firearms and enjoy shooting. We pay our taxes, don't dream of murdering people, and largely consider our autos to be investments much like classic cars or sports memorabillia.

B: Criminals and thugs who don't go through the proper, legal channels to purchase their weapons (I use the word weapon here intentionally, as it is these people who consider their firearms to be weapons, and intend on using them.) Outlawing firearms will not affect these people in the least as it is already illegal for them to own these firearms. When guns DO move across the border (not often as Mexico throws anyone entering their country with even a single round of ammo into jail for 20+ years) it is these outlaws and criminals who do the moving and selling.

C: Fringe elements made up of crazy mountain men and people who consider their friends to be a militia of some sort and are still out in the woods each weekend preparing for the Soviet Union to invade their small town. Really? Are you worried about these people taking over your country? They aren't a threat to anything except their local dentist's children getting the money for college... Sure, they're vocal and love making a spectacle, but they're on every watch list in the country and are largely law abiding citizens like group A. Those who fall into group B don't usually last more than a year or two before the ATF is at their door taking their toys to the furnace and hauling them off to federal prison for drug or firearms charges.

Being scared of an armed citizenry is about as sane as being scared of dogs. Sure, there are bad apples out there, but just because one in ten dogs have bitten someone doesn't mean that your neighbors lab is about to rip into your leg as you walk by...

I carry a pistol every day. You know how many people I've ever shot? none.

The other day I was at the grocery store and a woman saw my pistol. When she noticed that the hammer was back (the proper way to carry a 1911 is with a round in the chamber, the hammer back, and the safety on) she asked me "Isn't that dangerous."

My answer to her: "Yes, that's the point of owning a pistol. They're dangerous when you need them to be."

1: Most guns in Mexico come from central america or from the mexican givernment/military. See those pictures of the drug lords with H&K G3 rifles or MP5 submachine guns? Yeah, those couldn't have come from America. We can't get those here. (Well, we can, but they're 30k or more)

2. Very few americans own M-16's. As in less than a thousand most likely. Why? Because the process of purchasing a fully automatic firearm is such a pain that most people don't go through with it. Do you want the ATF to have a sheet of paper where you signed a waiver allowing them to walk into your home at any point, on ant day, without notice to search your home? Neither do most of us, and that's EXACTLY what you have to do to own a fully automatic firearm in this country.

Just to clarify, very few Americans own fully automatic weapons because it has been impossible to legally register one for civilian ownership since 1986. The supply is fixed and thus the prices for those that have been registered are extremely high. Also, owning an NFA firearm (or suppressor) certainly does not void your rights under the 4th amendment. The BATF may be able to demand to inspect your registered items but they definitely do not have a free pass to search your home or any other personal prop

I support responsible gun ownership, but I feel carrying a cocked, *loaded* pistol around crosses a line somewhere. We're civilians, it's ok to be prepared but you don't have to be that prepared. May I suggest purchasing a sidearm that doesn't need to have one in the chamber and cocked, it'd make everyone around you a lot more comfortable.

It isn't dangerous. Especially not if he is carrying a series 80 1911. If you like, see if you can find someone with one that will let you wear it for a few days. You don't have to chamber it or anything. Just cock it, flip on the safety, and wear it. Go jogging if you like. Do yardwork. Home improvement. Whatever you like. You will find, at the end of the day, that the hammer is still locked back.

You could, even, leave the safety off. The sear is pretty aggressive. It won't let go if you don't pull the tri

So I actually agree with the general point of your post. I was raised hunting and shooting and I agree that prohibition is a losing strategy (although I vehemently disagree that it's necessary to routinely carry a loaded weapon around for your personal safety, but that's an argument for another day). But I'll play devil's advocate because there are a couple things I disagree with.

B: Criminals and thugs who don't go through the proper, legal channels to purchase their weapons (I use the word weapon here in

Small time shit? Maybe. The cartels? Not a fucking chance. They have M16s (which aren't the domestic firearm that you see typical American citizens buying; M16s are fully automatic, and would run you or I several thousand dollars and some big-time licenses from the ATF). They have AK47s. They have fucking grenade launchers.

This crime, down in Mexico? It's not a few gangs running around scrounging up supplies. It's large paramilitary organizations. They have no interest in Pappy's scattergun. They want military arms.

Because he occupies an interesting space where both the police and the drug cartels are using him as a front for their media outreach campaign. As long as he's useful to both sides, and not too much of an annoyance, he'll be played by both.